> The nit: > > 192.0.2.0/12 (in Section 3) isn’t what I consider a well-formed prefix, since > the third octet has a set bit but isn’t under the mask. I would’ve said > 192.0.0.0/12. (Or better still 192.0/12, but that form seems to be > disfavored.)
nit? looks like a full grown bug to me. <blush> /12 seems excessive to make the point. how about the full example becoming: inetnum: 192.0.0.0/22 # example remarks: Geofeed https://example.com/geofeed_1 inetnum: 192.0.2.0/24 # example remarks: Geofeed https://example.com/geofeed_2 If geofeed_1 contains geolocation data about 192.0.2.0/29, it is ignored because 192.0.2.0/24 is within the more specific 192.0.2.0/24 inetnum: covering the address range and has a geofeed reference. randy _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg